Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 16, 2012	25		01/16 04:59pm
	Archive through January 20, 2012	25		01/21 11:57pm
	Archive through February 01, 2012	25		02/01 02:37pm
	Archive through February 07, 2012	25		02/21 11:33pm
	Archive through March 08, 2012	25		03/08 09:07pm

Changes to EaW 2a

"(EaW 2a) INITIAL RESOURCES:
Each player begins with one FRD located at a mineral planet. The mineral planet has a mine development already in place.
Each player receives 2000 BPV to build units and to supply those units with drone upgrades and or commanders options.
Unused Bpv is added to the Empire’s treasury at campaign start."

Will be changed to include 2 F-S, and 2 F-L, but you will not be able to use the 2000 eBPV for anything but combat hulls. No buying ground bases and CPL with that.

Production of ground bases with the FRD is slow and I may change that rule a bit. Looking for suggestions on that. I think the FRD should be for building warships and CPL, with a CPL installed at the planet I think planetary resources provided by the masters could build the GSA, GMS, and GSO that give income. It would simplify there use, save player time and keep the focus on the combat fleets not on building lush farm planets. You will still be able to build up an economy, but you wont have the buisy work of moving the bases around to emplace them.

This should give players many more moves to explore and get into fights, hopefully earlier than in EaW.

I want mines to be the big money maker. If the masters are running this game for there amusement they probably would provide simulated colonies for a bit of extra income, but they also dont want to wait 150 years for the population to grow, just like in EaW colonies and mines will develop alot faster than in the real world.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 06:34 pm: Edit

So we are up to 6 interested Admirals and only 1 day into the first come first served pick your empire phase of the game.

That seems to work well.

Im sorry if I missed anyone but here is the list so far.

Princeton, Peladine
Devil, Federation
Jungletoy, Gorn
Neonpico, Kzinti
Sir_Akira, ISC
mbaima, undecided
Lasnafu, Romulan, Hydran or Klingon

Eol had requested Romulan earlier if he decides not to participate the Romulan spot will then go to Lasnafu.

Got a few great empires still up for grabs, and if your able I suggest you start looking for potiential Vice Admirals and battle captains.

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Josh,
mbaima wanted Hydrans

I seem to recall that the empires would start at a Developed Colony with a CPL and 12 GSA already installed instead of a Mineral planet ?
I like that idea.

From what your suggesting re ground bases being built at a Colony/Mineral planet, we will not have any need for freighters ?

Cheers
Frank

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Large and small freighters would still have the ability to develop mines and colonies, and while the planets under my new system would be able to produce the bases on the ground they would still need a CPL, which will need transported there or built in orbit by an FRD.

And yes I did forget the CPL and 12 GSA and the starting system will be a life planet.

And im not totally set on the idea of building the econ bases at the planets I think it would save alot of work and keep the freighters out of most fleets.

Ok so were up to 7 players and Hydrans are spoken for also.

What does everyone think of the current economic rules, are they working, and would a simpler system make the Admirals job easier or just make you learn a new set of rules.

I have no desire to overcomplicate the strategic game, or force my admirals to do tedious work hauling bases around. The masters want combat, all the econoic rules should do is give you resources and something valuable to lose in battle.

Im thinking once the CPL is in place the planet could produce say 4 bases in a year, you would pay for them out of your treasury but they wouldnt take up FRD capacity or space on freighters. So in spring season you could spend the BPV to start developing the bases, and at the end of winter of that year they would be operational. So to fill up a planet with GSA's you would need 3 years of base construction.

Not sure I mentioned this but I really think I want the only bases to be CPL, GSA, GSO, and GMS, no combat bases or def sats. Battles with those units dont interest the masters as much as fleet battles.

Another idea was scrap value of destroyed enemy ships, if a fleet controls the system at the end of the season of battle they owuld recieve 10 percent of the eBPV of any ships they destroyed as a bonus from the Masters for there agression. These BPV would go directly into the treasury and there would be no actual salvage of the wrecked ships. Its a simple way to reward those who are willing to risk there fleets in battle.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Well. You've lost me on the Economy, so I'm going to have to lean heavily on the moderator's help for the first couple of turns.

I don't like the scrapping idea. Yes, we want to get away from farming. But freighters are supposed to be able to do that in the background. I realize that freighters may not be allowed to move on their own, because of the contrived movement system of the campaign. But darnit, if freighters can't move on their own (they do have their own NTW engines, don't they?) then they have to hitch a ride with a fleet. That means that freighters make it into the middle of combat again, where they have no business being.

By Francois Lemay (Princeton) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Matthew,
In EaW, freighters can move on their own if they are the only ships in the fleet.
Thing is their Cbpv does not count towards move points bonus.
I also agree freighters have no business being in a war fleet !!

Josh, Forgot about the freighters being used to develop stuff !


Cheers
Frank

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Ah, yes, the Star Control comapaign system. Fun.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Freighters have been allowed in fleets I just dont think a LAS for every fleet does the game any good, I liked the LAS but when everyone uses it for the main scout it gets pretty boring.

And the game has always rewarded the empires that control the valuable real estate.

Why is a small percentage of the destroyed ships BPV going into your treasury a problem. There is no incentive really to win battles early in the current rules. This would provide incentive to those who win battles, either attacking or defending.

Again it was just an idea.

Sorry Nick if that was a rules proposal that went right over my head. Since I hadnt planned on stars or even planets dominating my battle maps, its about control of the warp junctions, aka systems. Thats not new thats the way it is in EaW.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Ok there is some wish to keep Auxiliaries in the campaign.

Its been proposed that they be kept but included in the fleets cap, I still have a problem with this Aux's, but we should consider that there could be empires that need the because they are the only ships which fill some critical role.

Im sure the Klingons are not one of the challanged empires, but consider the D6SB vs the LAS. The combat BPV of the LAS is only 33, so its just too easy to skip all your real historic scouts in favor of the garbage scows.

Then there is the Klingon Destroyer, the LAC. I really think some empires didnt get ships in some classed by design. If the Klingons were meant to have a 3 Disruptor and 7 ph 2 destroyer there should have been one published. The cost of this unit makes buying F5C's out of the question.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 12:23 am: Edit

I wish there were someone more qualified to put this together, its clear now a day into the process that it will be pretty impossible to keep everyone happy with the rules.

So if there is anyone who really wants to manage this thing please speak up and you have the job, I can see how much work I would have to put into the rules and maps.

I wonder if in the end I would be wasting my time and 7 other peoples time even trying to get EaW2 started. Im just glad that EaW lives on, I guess my ideas for changing EaW are not that popular.

If I get any inspiration ill be sure to post it here and someday there will be enough to create something other than a star control campaign.

Its better to come to this realization now then after everyone gets all excited, so we have 7 admiarls, 1 set of rules, no galactic map and no GM.

The truth is I dont know if I could stick with this over the long haul and that is probably several years.

So eager GM's take over from here, see if you can find some good set of rules, I can see now that this is going to be way over my head.

Good luck, dont think I need to be an Admiral in this either. Maybe after I play in a few more Ill have more good ideas than the bad ones Ive been proposing.

Unfortunatly few of the 7 Admirals have made any suggestions, and with this level of participation I cant do the rules changes.

So very sorry but games probably not gonna happen which is really not going to surprise anyone.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 09:46 am: Edit

Whoever created these rules based them on the old (fantastic) computer game Star Control. It had point to point movement, colonies, mines, fortifications, that all work the same way. The only real difference is this has more than 2 players and simultaneous turns.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Was Star Control battles resolved with SFB battles, I think thats another difference.

In wargames you have to fight over something, who cares what, ships represented by pages of dead tree's, or the digital version of those pages.

There was a star wars game called Empires at war and it too had some similarities to EaW. I personally liked the EaW rules, figured I could change a few things without too much trouble but I was wrong.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 09, 2012 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Star Control combat was sort of arcade like, one ship on one ship only. Each side (Grand Alliance, Ur-Quan Heirarchy) had about 7 ship types, each ship had different stats for thrust, turning rate, main weapon, secondary weapon or system. Many rock-paper-scissor combinations, some ships were better against other ships, so part of moving your ships around the map was to build colonies/mines/fortifications, but part was also to position your ships in order to take on enemy ships that they were advantaged against. You could also move your starbase (replaced with the FRD here) for three moves. Fun game.

I was not trying to tell you to change the rules, I was just noting that the concept of colony=free move, mines=income, fortifications=slowing the enemy comes from Star Control. This campaign system is just Star Control with a bit more detail, and SFB fleets in place of Star Control ships. Cool concept.

By Justin Royter (Metaldog) on Friday, April 06, 2012 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Hey Admirals,

I am looking to play tactical battles for this campaign. I have a ton of experience with fleet actions and the time to play these battles out. I would prefer to play Feds, Klings, Hydrans, ISC, but I will play anything really. I am online quite a bit and my email is MetalDog09@yahoo.com. I am hoping to get involved right away so please let me know, thanks.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 10:05 am: Edit

Can this be deleted?

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Yes